By now, most people are aware of the fact that Miss California was asked by an obnoxious gay activist judge whether she thought every state should legalize gay marriage, and she gave a very non-confrontational answer in which she apologetically stated her own opinion that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and quickly stated that it was not her intention to offend anyone by saying so.

Her answer has been called controversial, despite the fact that her opinion happens to be the opinion shared by all of human history since the dawn of time up until very recently. Her opinion happens to also coincide with the stated opinion of President Obama, but I think the Gay activists give him a pass because they know he doesn't really mean it.

Even the ancient Greeks, many of whom held the opinion that a homosexual relationship was superior to a relationship between a man and a woman, never imagined calling a homosexual relationship "marriage". Marriage can only be between a man and woman because only a man and woman can produce offspring. We have laws that govern marriage because human societies have always seen the importance of identifying who a child's parents are (DNA testing is a very recent phenomenon), and what responsibilities the parents have to each other, to the children and what responsibilities children have to their parents. We have spousal benefits, because of the fact that having children and raising them requires that certain accommodations be made to facilitate that.

Two gay men do not need spousal benefits, because they can both work. If one becomes disabled, there are disability benefits available for him. There is no need to define their relationship legally, because they cannot produce children. If they want to provide for property rights for their gay lovers, there are legal means available for them to do so.

Most people are not in favor of being mean to other people... including gay people. Most people do not think gays should be beaten up, or otherwise mistreated. However, Gay Activists are not happy with being tolerated -- they want everyone to approve of their lifestyle. But you know what? This is America, and we don't have to approve of their lifestyle... and we certainly do not have to change the meaning of marriage that has existed for all of time to make them feel better about themselves. Aside from everything else, redefining marriage will not make them feel better about themselves, and they will have to move on to some other means of being obnoxious in their never ending pursuit of the elimination of any opinion about their lifestyle that does not coincide with their own.

They say they want tolerance... but who is being intolerant here? Miss California's answer was exceedingly tolerant, perhaps too tolerant. Their abuse of her ever since has been incredibly intolerant.

And to answer the specious arguments that the definition of marriage has changed over history, because polygamy use to be allowed -- polygamy literally means "many marriages", and it refers to the practice of a man who has had multiple marriages to multiple women -- each marriage, however, happens to be between a man and a woman. The man's wives are not married to each other. A polygamous man can divorce one wife, while remaining married to the other women. Christians have always been opposed to polygamy, because we believe that the ideal is for one man to marry only one woman for life. Polygamy, however is not a thing of the past (it exists in many parts of the world), and if gay marriage is allowed, it is hard to imagine how polygamy can remain illegal in the United States for long.

Some are saying Gay Marriage is inevitable. If it is, the Islamic take over that will follow such a deterioration of our culture, is also inevitable... and they will then ban gay marriage, and cut off the heads of the gay activists who are pushing this agenda. If it comes to that, they will long for the day when the most intolerant thing they had to deal with were Southern Baptists, like Carrie Prejean.